5 ms·

The way I see the FSF is that they try to create a system where everyone's freedom to change and share between other people is maximized. To be able to meet th

The way I see the FSF is that they try to create a system where everyone's freedom to change and share between other people is maximized. To be able to meet this goal we need some rules, like not being able to change software and share as closed source. We don't want near absolute freedom like the MIT license. For the same reason we don't want to live in a country without any rules. So this clause aligns perfectly with how I view GPL, maximizing people's freedom to modify and share the software.

inopinatus 4y ago
The coercive behavior the FSF promulgates represents a narrow and openly ideological view of "freedom". Thankfully, there are other ways to share open-source software, ones that don't restrict options or create burdensome obligations for users & contributors.
- vinceguidry 4y ago
  Openly ideological is better than nakedly profit-seeking, which is mostly all the open source community offers.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- trelane 4y ago
  What "burdensome obligations" does the GPLv3 impose on each group? I'm especially keen to know what restrictions the GPL poses for users.
  - DangitBobby 4y ago
    I personally consider being forced to open-source derivitive software (or software that merely uses it) to be burdensome enough not to use GPL projects.
    - trelane 4y ago
      Yes, all software licenses impose restrictions. The GPL's restrictions ensure that the end user maintains their freedom, at the expense of developer freedom to choose their own, more restrictive (to the end user but also potentially to other developers) license, if they want to incorporate the Free Software into their own software. That is a tradeoff I'm cool with. I'm always a fan of ensuring end user freedom, including the right to repair. I will also note that the GPL is explicitly not an end-user license. You can do whatever you want with it yourself. It only covers distribution.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]

inopinatus 4y ago

The coercive behavior the FSF promulgates represents a narrow and openly ideological view of "freedom". Thankfully, there are other ways to share open-source software, ones that don't restrict options or create burdensome obligations for users & contributors.

vinceguidry 4y ago
Openly ideological is better than nakedly profit-seeking, which is mostly all the open source community offers.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
trelane 4y ago
What "burdensome obligations" does the GPLv3 impose on each group? I'm especially keen to know what restrictions the GPL poses for users.
- DangitBobby 4y ago
  I personally consider being forced to open-source derivitive software (or software that merely uses it) to be burdensome enough not to use GPL projects.
  - trelane 4y ago
    Yes, all software licenses impose restrictions. The GPL's restrictions ensure that the end user maintains their freedom, at the expense of developer freedom to choose their own, more restrictive (to the end user but also potentially to other developers) license, if they want to incorporate the Free Software into their own software. That is a tradeoff I'm cool with. I'm always a fan of ensuring end user freedom, including the right to repair. I will also note that the GPL is explicitly not an end-user license. You can do whatever you want with it yourself. It only covers distribution.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]